Mythbusters.

[Vexer]

The TV show.

 

 

Good for Science, or not?

 

 

 

(I say yes, in very much deed).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Good in that it encourages people to take myths and put them to the test. Bad in that it doesn't always set up proper controls and run experiments in the most scientific fashion.

[Vexer]

Yes it does. Or, tries to.

 

And best of all, you get to see when their thinking goes wrong. You get to see 'scientific' thinking, 'live'.

 

That's never, ever, been done before.

 

"Well, I figured *this*, but I was wrong. Now, I'll try *this* What if I...".

 

That's Science.

[SkepticLance]

I love what mythbusters are doing. It is a fantastic concept and really good for science education.

 

My only quibble is that the show is too damn slow! These days, no-one will watch a slow TV show. You gotta spend the money and make it fast paced and exciting.

[Vexer]

(And comedy helps)

[YT2095]

I like it just the way it is in all honesty, and I think it`s also important that they Do revisit old "myths" with new data if a result was challenged.

 

it gets a Thumbs Up from me.

[hermanntrude]

i never thought of mythbusters as particularly scientific. It's just a lot of fun.

 

And yes, I do like the way that sometimes they'll admit "we thought this one out wrong". I thought it was great when they revisited the "archimedes death ray" because so many viewers felt they could do better.

[Mr Skeptic]

Good in that it encourages people to take myths and put them to the test. Bad in that it doesn't always set up proper controls and run experiments in the most scientific fashion.

 

They can't always do that. People would get bored with some of the proper controls, which would be worse than a little inaccuracy.

[swansont]

Zombie Feynman likes it.

 

The issue I have is when they fail to recreate an effect and declare the myth busted; all they have demonstrated is that the incident didn't happen, not that it couldn't. That's the rigor it lacks.

[CharonY]

Also what they do as replicates are usually not statistically significant. It is often fun, though. Maybe a bit like CSI for the forensic community, only better.

 

Well, Zombie Feynman is quite convincing, though.

[ecoli]

Also what they do as replicates are usually not statistically significant.

What they lack in replication, they make up for in the amount of different subject matter they cover, and sheer volume of data produced. They usually bust 3-4 myths per episode, right?

[CharonY]

Well, these are two issues. Basically if the data (analysis) is not of sufficient quality one cannot declare an effect as busted. This problem does not go away if you just do something else with the same lack of rigor. Also they usually do not really produce an awful lot of data. Usually there are only two to three data points per experiment. Much of the fun is not in the results but the whacky way they try to approach it. Also the replicates are quite often not really replicates in the strictest sense and so on.

Of course there are limitations due to time and cost and it is an entertainment show after all. However, sometimes they do use the word "science" or "scientifically" quite a bit too often for my taste.

[Vexer]

They do suspiciously go out of their way to say 'science' a lot. But that can be taken in two ways.

 

One; they want to convince you that what they are doing is really science (when you might not think it is, as an educated person).

 

Two; they want to convince you that what they are doing is really science (when you might not think it is, as an school kid or more uneducated person).

 

 

Yes, it's not great science, not ideal "what I would like to see" Science, necessarily.

 

But, compared to it's competitors, (wait a sec, there aren't any?), it's pretty good.

 

 

This puts me in mind of the argument about whether Steve Irwin, the "Crocodile Hunter" is a "naturalist" (or conservationist) or not. Similar question.

[ydoaPs]

But, compared to it's competitors, (wait a sec, there aren't any?), it's pretty good.

 

Smash Lab has better science.

[Rev Blair]

Smash Lab does have better science, I think. I've noticed a few other things that seem to have come from the Mythbusters thing too.

 

There's the Reinventors...they take old patents and try to make them work. Sometimes there's good science and sometimes it's kind of goofy, but it's always entertaining.

 

For pure science in the popular media, I think Quirks and Quarks on CBC radio still pretty much sets the standard. It's just interviews with working scientists for the most part, but they actually talk about science in an accessible manner.

 

The Jay Ingram show on Discovery Canada used to be good too...he came from Quirks and Quarks and that seemed to be the model for the original...but it's become a showcase for gadgetry instead of a science show.

[Royston]

But, compared to it's competitors, (wait a sec, there aren't any?), it's pretty good.

 

Well in the UK we have / had 'Brainiac', it hasn't been on for a while, which is quite frankly, a good thing. It's a really awful show, and pretty much, a mockery of the scientific method. We're quite a fan of mythbusters in our house, despite the rigor it lacks, it's certainly better than a lot of the guff you get on TV.

 

'I can do science, me'...<shudders> (Brainiac catchphrase)

[DrP]

Well in the UK we have........

 

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen 'Look Around You' ??

 

 

I prefer the 1st series. It's done in a very dead pan way in the style of the old 1970's open university programs. The science is of course - completely off the wall and a load of crap, but it is presented as fact with experiments to back it up. They come up with some interesting versions of teh periodic table... Vey funny.

[Royston]

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen 'Look Around You' ??

 

Thanks ants...Thants

 

Here's the math episode...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9UXw0fQmno

 

Not really comparable to mythbusters, obviously, but yes, I used to really enjoy 'Look Around You.'

[Phi for All]

There's the Reinventors...they take old patents and try to make them work. Sometimes there's good science and sometimes it's kind of goofy, but it's always entertaining.

Which network are they with? I like the sound of this show.

 

I remember reading about a guy who used to comb through old patents to see if they'd cover more modern needs (needs that might not have been around when the patent was taken out). He ended up making a small bundle with an old air compression cylinder which he turned into a spud gun pistol.

[iNow]

Is it Patent Bending, in the Science channel?

 

http://www.patentbending.com/

[Rev Blair]

Which network are they with? I like the sound of this show.

 

It's on the Canadian History Channel. I'm not sure whether it's a Canadian show or something they bought from the US though.

[CaptainPanic]

Mythbusters is brilliant. It is not always scientifically correct, but:

 

1. It motivates people to think, and perhaps to pick up science. I hope that kids get enthousiastic. Anyway, I don't expect science at primetime on TV.

 

2. The mythbusters do come back to a topic if replies from fans (or grumpy scientists like you all ) say that they made a mistake.

 

3. They try to explain the science behind the things they investigate.

 

4. I haven't heard them use any "Discovery Channel Units", ever, (volume expressed in [Football stadiums], weight in [Elephants] and length in [boeing 747's])... which I think is fantastic, given the fact that they're on the Discovery Channel.

 

I don't understand why SkepticLance thinks it is too slow. In the Netherlands, the shows are 1 hour, max. 3 commercial breaks, and imho full of fun. I don't get bored.

[ydoaPs]

4. I haven't heard them use any "Discovery Channel Units", ever, (volume expressed in [Football stadiums], weight in [Elephants] and length in [boeing 747's])... which I think is fantastic, given the fact that they're on the Discovery Channel.

 

I've seen them use wonky units several times(ex: weight in kilograms, current in voltage, and torque in pounds).

[Rev Blair]

4. I haven't heard them use any "Discovery Channel Units", ever, (volume expressed in [Football stadiums], weight in [Elephants] and length in [boeing 747's])... which I think is fantastic, given the fact that they're on the Discovery Channel.

 

The other day I expressed something by saying, "That's a lot of hay," in a conversation about something having nothing to do with hay (we were actually talking about the price of lithium power tools). The guy I was talking to, who knows nothing about agriculture, insisted that I express it by how many pick-up trucks it would take to haul the hay. "Blue trucks or green trucks?" I asked (not such a bizarre question, since I own a green 3/4 ton and a blue 1/2 ton), then wondered, "And what kind of bales?" (also not bizarre if you know about bales)

 

He didn't get my point...that I could say anything and it would be more or less meaningless to him...and actually got a little upset at me.

 

This is a relatively bright guy, but he's been so conditioned by meaningless "measurements" that he expected me to have one ready. So I sent him an e-mail a little later, "Assuming large round bales made on a John Deere hay brake in a filed of prime alfalfa, it's about the same as 50 dozen Two Rivers beer."

 

His reply was, and I'm assuming he'd regained his sense of humour by this time, "Do you mean volume or weight?"

[RyanJ]

Anything that gets kids interested in science (at least as a starting reference place) is a good thing in my book and they get the thumbs up.